Compulsory retirement ends entitlement to official quarters, subject to a conditional academic-year extension.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the memorandum directing Petitioner No. 1 to vacate the official quarters and pay HRA-equivalent charges and utility arrears was unlawful.

The court held

The writ petition was disposed of without quashing the memorandum.

It also directed

Petitioner No. 1 was permitted to remain in the quarters until 31 May 2027, on condition that he file, within 15 days of receiving the certified copy, an affidavit undertaking to vacate without resistance by that date.

He was also directed to pay HRA-equivalent arrears for the relevant period by the end of December 2026, continue payment for the remaining months up to April 2027, and pay electricity and water arrears from May 2023 until vacation.

If he failed to file the affidavit within the stipulated period, the respondents could implement the memorandum.

01Facts

Petitioner No. 1, a police department employee, was compulsorily retired following a show-cause notice dated 23 September 2022.

He and his family continued to occupy official quarters after his retirement.

By memorandum dated 23 April 2024, the Deputy Commissioner of Police directed him to vacate and to pay an amount equivalent to HRA from the date of compulsory retirement, as well as electricity and water charges.

pp. 3–4

Petitioner No. 1 challenged the memorandum, citing a serious neurological disorder and the schooling of his children nearby; his challenge to the compulsory-retirement order was pending before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal.

pp. 4–5

The High Court noted that he had remained in the quarters for more than three years after the retirement order.

p. 6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the memorandum directing Petitioner No. 1 to vacate the official quarters and pay HRA-equivalent charges and utility arrears was unlawful.

p. 3, 6

ii.2. Whether, despite the cessation of his entitlement to occupy the quarters upon compulsory retirement, Petitioner No. 1 should receive a limited extension because of his medical condition and his children’s studies.

pp. 4–5, 7

03Law Applied

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

p. 3

The Court applied the principle that an employee’s right to occupy official quarters ceases upon compulsory retirement; continued occupation thereafter does not, by itself, invalidate a direction to vacate.

p. 6

No specific statutory provision, service rule, or precedent was cited in the order.

The Court nevertheless considered the children’s academic circumstances when deciding whether to grant a limited period to vacate.

p. 7

04Reasoning

The Court held that Petitioner No. 1’s continued occupation for more than three years after compulsory retirement was not justified and found no illegality or perversity in the impugned memorandum.

p. 6

It therefore did not disturb the direction to vacate or the requirement to pay HRA-equivalent charges and utility arrears.

However, taking account of the children’s studies, the Court allowed occupation until the end of the 2026–27 academic year, subject to an affidavit undertaking to vacate and to pay the specified amounts.

pp. 7–8